this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
20 points (85.7% liked)

Lemmy Moderators

762 readers
1 users here now

A community for moderators of various communities to discuss moderating. Help others and get help yourself! Remember, there are no stupid questions!

If you have general questions or things you want to share about the Fediverse, then head over to [email protected]!

If you want help with making a lemmy bot, then head over to [email protected]!

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Can I make a rule for my community that threads users will be banned?
If .world doesn't defederate and threads users find their way into my community, I want to ban any that interact. Using anything meta related is a fundamental violation of the values I hold for using FOSS and the fediverse.
Would doing so violate the guidelines? I don't see anything suggesting it would, but want to check.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think that is a commonly espoused but problematic philosophy. It always sounds inclusing and like the morally right path, but it actually puts all of the onus one one party to educate the other, and none on people to educate themselves. Which in practice gives all of the power to one group and the responsibility to the other. Why should we educate Meta users? They have access to the internet, to the same information all of us do. They can educate themselves.

Putting out more information about how the Fediverse works is a great thing to do, but Meta users are not some gated community that we can only interact with by joining it. All of the content here is visible to anyone and if they want to participate they just need to create an account, it is not a big ask. The issue is not "do we want to interact with these people" because they are not exclusive groups, many of their users are users here too. The issue is whether we want to automatically allow a Meta group's users a passport to act freely in our communities.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

they can educate themselves, but they likely wont

recognising that doesnt make for a problematic philosophy, it makes for a realistic and practical one

crossing your arms and refusing to do anything about something you take issue with because 'i shouldnt have to >:(' is fine, and youre allowed to do it, but it still means that nothings going to be done about the thing you take issue with

sort of like how staunchly refusing to clean up after someone because they should just clean it themselves still means youre going to be wading through garbage, and refusing to accomodate the idiot driving in front of you because they should just drive normally still means your carll get totaled

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If someone refuses to clean up after themselves I stop inviting them to my house.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

and thats fine, and youre allowed to do it, and folks will remain uneducated